Famed Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz ranks Sen. Ted Cruz among the schools smartest students, adding that the Canada-born Texan can run for president in 2016.

Cruz was a terrific student, Dershowitz told The Daily Caller. He was always very active in class, presenting a libertarian point of view. He didnt strike me as a social conservative, more of a libertarian.

He had brilliant insights and he was clearly among the top students, as revealed by his class responses, Dershowitz added.

Dershowitz also gave a high estimate of Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren  who has decidedly different political views than Cruz.

Dershowitz says he and Cruz would often debate issues presented in Dershowitzs criminal law class. Cruzs views were always thoughtful and his responses were interesting, the law professor explained. I obviously disagreed with them and we had good arguments in class. I would challenge him and he would come up with very good responses.

But Cruz is a conservative who attacks brilliant. He doesn’t just make noise, he goes for the libs jugular. He is their worst nightmare. He is what I been asking for in my comments here for a long time, a very smart and tough fighter to make my day (better)

10
posted on 05/09/2013 7:54:46 PM PDT
by sickoflibs
(To GOP : Any path to US citizenship IS putting them ahead in line. Stop lying about your position.)

actually a pragmatic libertarian would not be a bad choice for the pubs in the next election. I have trashed them as much as anyone but only because of the rules-based dogma espoused by people like Ron Paul on foreign policy & 9/11. I could accept a libertarian with rational foreign policy views.

I’m not going to get into a big debate, but the requirement for President and VP, of course, is that he must be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. That has long been understood to mean a child of two American citizen parents born on American soil/territory. Neither Cruz nor Rubio qualifies as a natural born American citizen.

15
posted on 05/09/2013 8:03:23 PM PDT
by WXRGina
(The Founding Fathers would be shooting by now.)

Canadian and Cuban citizen Rafael Edward Cruz.
*****************************************************
I hope you’re not here to focus on trying to destroy the true conservatives in the Republican party.

I noticed your FR join date is March 15, 2013—Mama always warned be about the Ides of March. Betrayal comes in many forms.

The Founders made a distinction between the requirements for senators and representatives (citizens) and president and vice-president (natural born citizen). They did this for a very distinct and important reason—to prevent someone with dual or duplicitous loyalties from assuming the office of president.

If you or anyone else doesn’t like the Constitution, convene a convention and change it (which would be a very, very bad idea). It says what it says, and natural born citizen means the same thing now as it did when the Founders wrote it in our Constitution, regardless of how many people choose to ignore, deny or pervert its meaning.

35
posted on 05/09/2013 8:26:09 PM PDT
by WXRGina
(The Founding Fathers would be shooting by now.)

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," [n7] and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

2 yrs physical U.S. presence between ages 14-28, except if born 10/10/52 or after ** --or--5 yrs U.S. residence between 13-21 yrs.**

On/after 12-24-52 and before 11-14-86

Both

1 parent resided in U.S.

None

Only 1

USC parent with 10 yrs physical presence in U.S. prior to your birth, at least 5 yrs. after parent's age 14

None

On/after 11-14-86

Both

1 parent resided in U.S.

None

Only 1

USC parent physically present in U.S. 5 yrs, at least 2 yrs. after parent's age 14

None

Children under age 18 may qualify for automatic or expedited naturalization if they have at least 1 USC parent. This can eliminate green card residency and physical presence requirements. It may eliminate the green card requirement itself. Automatic: Child has a green card. Expedited: Child has USC parent or grandparent who has been physically present in the U.S. for 5 years, 2 which were after parent's or grandparent's age 14.** Residence of the child is no longer required. If a child lost citizenship by not meeting the residency requirement, the child can reinstate citizenship. However, children who reinstate citizenship cannot pass citizenship on to their children born after citizenship was lost. *Data obtained from C. Gordon and S. Mailman, Immigration Law and Practice [Appendix A, A.1 (a)] and U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual, Vol.8, Exhibit 214.1, 1967, and updated by Joseph Grasmick, Esq.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.